Keyes v. Bowen: Supreme Court Denies Another Obama Eligibility Case With No Comment Or Recusal From Sotomayor Or Kagan
10-1351 KEYES, ALAN, ET AL. V. BOWEN, DEBRA, ET AL.
The petitions for rehearing are denied.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1351.htm
PAGE 11: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100311zor.pdf
Case background here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=298105
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: We're evading the eligibility issue:
We Have a Criminal and Forger in the White House! 20110627 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5
47 comments:
I wonder if Clarence Thomas has done anything about this mess.
-- echofoxtrot
we need to vote all our politicians out and bring them all up on charges. once the congress and the senate is cleaned up. its time to impeach the supreme court. ALL OF THEM! between Obama our worthless cowards in congress who are so afraid of being labeled racists that they are willing to commit treason. They need to know they are no longer have a hope in hell of being elected. and even if they are they will be brought up on charges and be removed. WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO LET THEM KNOW WE ARE ALL DONE BEING USED AND ROBBED.
@Anonymous
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: We're evading the eligibility issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08
it really makes me sick to think that it is this EASY to come into the United States and commit HORRIBLE acts of TREASON as a United States PRESIDENT and all the people who sit in the places of power and have SWORN to protect the CITIZENS, are sitting on there hands and acting like they have their mouths tapped shut. I TRULY believe that if Eric Holder were removed from office, that the wheels of Justice would finally start to turn. All we need now is to REMOVE the Squatters in the Supreme court.
Before the first case against obama was given to the SCOTUS, obama had an unprecedented meeting with SCOTUS - this is either UN-Ethical or ILLEGAL and after the meeting, the SCOTUS dismissed ALL cases against obama for Standing, without anyone giving any reason for doing so. This is something that I will NEVER forget.
@Anonymous
I totally understand your anger and frustration.
The US Senate only replaces one-third of its members in any national election and the next time to change anybody in Congress is when Obama is up for reelection.
Hopefully he'll be gone and a lot of liberals will go with him but the Supreme Court is there for life or until they decide to retire.
That's the way the Founding Fathers designed our system.
Justice Thomas is right, the Supreme Court is evading the issue because its the job of Congress to remove an ineligible person from office via impeachement for high crimes and misdemeanors.
@Brett Tiernan
You forgot about the two cases that the Supreme Court declined to consider in December 2008, a month before the meet and greet coffee and light refreshment date in January 2009.
@Anonymous
"but the Supreme Court is there for life or until they decide to retire."
Supreme Court Justices can be impeached.
Samuel Chase went through an impeachment trial but was acquitted in the Senate.
Let us not forget Chief Injustice Roberts who has been sitting on an eligibility petition with 325,000 signatures since early 2009. from He is an "Obama" sock puppet.
When the new POTUS met with the Supreme Court privately in Jan 2009 he probably told them something about himself that sacred the hell out of them and therefore they have since been too terrified to challenge him.
"Supreme Court Justices can be impeached."
Don't you get it??? Senator or congressman is TOUCHING the eligibility issue. How do you expect them to be impeached? MAGIC???
@Anonymous
Don't get excited. It was just a response to Anonymous@10:51 AM (SCOTUS Justices cannot be impeached), who was responding to Anonymous@10:27 suggestion that SCOTUS Justices should be impeached after a new Senate and House are elected.
I find nothing funny about this situation. . . Running the USA is serious business and there needs to be an air of gravity about such proceedings. Laugh at your own time during lunch, and do the job you are supposed to be doing with due diligence, Pork rinds. . .
The Fraud obama is going down and soon . They can't hide the truth any longer . We The People have a criminal in the White House and one of his names is Obama . obama is illegally holding office because he dose not meet US Constitutional standards to hold the office of the president of these United States.
This was the question, and the only question, presented to the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Keyes v Bowen:
"QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether the Secretary of State, as the Chief Elections Officer of the State of California, be required to verify that candidates for the Office of President of the United States are indeed eligible for the office before placing the candidates on the California ballot?"
The Supreme Court of the State of California, for various reasons, had previously upheld the CA lower court's rulings that the SoS, does not have that duty.
SCOTUS refused to take up that question.
WARNING TO THE SUPREME COURT...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy
AND THE LATTER IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN!
How many cases does it tale for you to realize that the Supreme Court, the CIA and the FBI have NO interest in this and don't feel that there's anything wrong! It's birther cases 83 losses to 0 wins! Obama looks like a man who's afraid of nothing, he's the 2012 candidate and he's he's ahead of every GOP candidate! The FBI thinks birthers are nothing but "crackpots" Nothing will change except Obama will be re-elected mark my words.
@bobsbox
You are not impliedly threatening the Court with violence are you? The Justices do not succumb to political pressure or threat of impeachment, and that is how it should be. The Executive and Legislative branches are the political arms of government l.
@Anonymous
The reason that the Founding Fathers wanted Supreme Court Justices appointed for life was so that they would be immune from political pressure or threats of any kind.
Most of the Justices choose not to read newspapers or watch tv news so that they are not influenced by the fads or politics of the day.
Doug,
Maybe you are a bit too optimistic about how great Barry is doing. Obama's magic is gone and it ain't coming back. Even blacks are tired of the phony-baloney piece of crap. Here are just a few headlines currently at the Drudge Report:
RON PAUL FLOATS IMPEACHMENT FOR DRONE KILL OF U.S. CITIZEN...
Cantor: Obama's Jobs Bill Dead; His 'All-Or-Nothing Approach' Is Unacceptable...
PRESIDENT UNDER WATER BACK HOME...
Claims 'underdog' status for 2012...
POLL: Majority expect him to lose...
ESPN YANKS HANK WILLIAMS JR. FROM 'MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL'; LIKENS OBAMA TO HITLER...
AA BANKRUPTCY FEAR ROCKS STREET...
STOCKS BELOW 'AVERAGE RECESSION' LEVELS...
DOW SHAVES ANOTHER 250...
GALLUP: MORE THINK SUPREME COURT TOO LIBERAL THAN CONSERVATIVE...
PAPER: China or USA? Make your choice...
@Anonymous
Are you saying the Supreme Court has not been politicized by Obama? His appointees risk losing their positions on the Court if they allow Obama's eligibility to be heard. How is that not a political situation? Obama has made very sure his influence is felt on the Court and possibly he has made some threats against some justices himself. We don't know that for sure, but the only way to be certain Obama has not unfairly politicized and influenced the Court for starters is for Sotomayer and Kagen to recuse themselves from these cases. They have not and will not, therefore, the Court has accepted that it is not a body of law but a political arm doing the bidding of the biggest political thug to ever sit in the Oval Office.
@Anonymous
Wrong - if he is ineligible, he is occupying the office illegally. He can't be impeached because he's NOT PRESIDENT!! If you're ineligible to run, you cannot be a legally elected president. Therefore:
He has broken the law of the land (The Constitution) He is there illegally and The SUPREME COURT should do their duty and REMOVE His illegal ass from the Peoples House!!!
ELmo
@ Anonymous 4:57
"His appointees risk losing their positions on the Court if they allow Obama's eligibility to be heard."
No, they don't. That is a myth/falsehood/fallacy.
If Obama was determined to day to be ineligible to hold office they would not be affected in their position as Justices of the Supreme Court.
It's also a fallacy that if that were to happen everything he's done/signed would be automatically null and void.
@ELmo
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to remove any sitting president. That power is delegated solely to Congress.
The "issue" of Obama's status as a natural born citizen or not has not been before the Supreme Court in any case to date.
@Anonymous
Kagan, Sotomayor, Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer are irrelevant to granting Cert on an Obama eligiblity appeal. The Supreme Court operates under the "Rule of Four" for granting Certiorari. There are FIVE conservative Justices: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts,
Scalia, and Thomas. Any four of those five could have granted cert to Keyes v Bowen or any of the other eleven Obama eligibility-releated appeals that have been reviewed in Justices' conference.
At the Supreme Court, recusal is at the discretion of each Justice. However Elena Kagan has set a new record for her number of recusals due to serving as Solicitor General before being confirmed by the Senate.
@Anonymous
It is up to the "Candidate" to prove his eligibility. The shenanigans that went on to get him on the ballot in Hawaii were a national disgrace (the Hawaiian DNC refused to certify him as eligible and Pelosi DID perjure herself and signed the CON for him) The onus is not on the People to prove him ineligible, ONLY A Natural Born Citizen can be President - It's up to him to prove he's eligible - What has he offered for proof? He's sealed his records. The Court needs to an ivestigation (Like Watergate - a special prosecutor) and remove the phony once they find out he's sans documentia.
ELmo
@Anonymous
"The Supreme Court does not have the authority to remove any sitting president. That power is delegated solely to Congress."
So as I understand it, if the Sumpreme Court should ever decide that NBC means two citizen parents, then the Congress would have to have an impeachment trial to remove a President who didn't meet that requirement. It seems unlikely that any of that could happen before January, 2013 or even January, 2017.
@Anonymous
Anonymous at 5:28 says: "The "issue" of Obama's status as a natural born citizen or not has not been before the Supreme Court in any case to date."
That is incorrect.
Berg v Obama, Herbert v Obama, Craig v US, Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro directly challenged Barack Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen. Those appeals were all heard in Justices' Certiorari conferences at the Supreme Court and they were all denied cert by the Supreme Court for failure to get four Justices to agree to hear the appeal before the full court.
@Anonymous
He's a sitting Imposter until he proves he's eligible (which he hasn't done to this point and is pointedly avoiding doing). He's an obvious fraud. If your kid was hiding something behind his back and you confronted him on it - you'd know he was lying if he told you he wasn't hiding anything. There needs to be a special prosecutor appointed and when it is found that the fraud doesn't have any papers - HE SHOULD BE REMOVED NOT IMPEACHED. He's NOT a president if he's there illegally.
ELmo
ELmo...you are correct. Every night 0 and Valerie pray that they can hang on to their jobs. They are stonewalling the USA with a massive wall of silence that surrounds the White House. Even the butlers at the White House know that Barry is a fraud but they continue this French farce as if its a play at Versailles.
Everyone is pretending that Barry is president and the Oval Office is his sand box. In all of world history, no one has ever seen a charade as phony as this one.
@jh4freedom
You are correct in your comments regarding the rule of four. It only takes four loyal Americans on the court to agree for the case to be heard. However, you are incorrect in suggesting that Kennedy is a Conservative. He is a moderate / Centrist. The court is in balance with four Traditional Americancs, four Commies, and one Centrist (Kennedy). In addition, since there are four traditional Americans on the court there is no excuse for the issue of NBC to not be heard. I fear that there is another reason for this issue to be hushed over.
I understand why the LWRM does not cover the eligibility issue. What is more of a concern is why does the Traditional American media refuse to cover the story. If it is mentioned it is only in the form of criticism almost to the point of being obviously fake or put on commentary. As an example, Bill O’Reilly’s obvious lies regarding the issue and giggling about it, the John Gibson tape, etc. It does not make sense. These people are not stupid. Any person with average mental competence, a small amount of logical capability, and the ability to apply an ordinary bit of common sense who spends thirty minutes researching the issue cannot reach any other conclusion other than the simple fact that the office of POTUS has been usurped by someone who is not eligible. I will not lay out all of the facts herein, it is not necessary. Anyone who has researched the issue knows that Chairman Soetoro needs to be removed from office on the basis that he does not meet the constitutional requirements to be POTUS. Even the OBOTs know this. They just don’t care as long as someone who is promoting their Socialist / Communist agenda is in power. Therefore, this is not about whether or not Chairman Soetoro is eligible to be POTUS or not. The fact that he is not is known by all who are familiar with the issue.
This scenario creates a very scary enigma. Commander Kerchner suggests that the reason why the issue is not being properly addressed is the fear of race riots. That may be true and actually I hope the answer is that simple. However, I for one do not believe that ignoring the issue is a viable approach if that is the fear. First of all, I do not like the idea of establishing as a precedent that violating the laws of the land will be ignored because certain groups of people object to the law being enforced. I do not like the idea of Chairman Soetoro just being ousted in the next election and leaving office with our national security secrets in hand. He needs to be removed and jailed. In addition, I do not believe that all of the people involved in refusing to properly address the issue: the Congress, the courts including the SCOTUS, and the Traditional American media would neglect their duties and turn their back on the USA for this reason. I hope that I am wrong but I suspect that something more sinister and catastrophic for the American way of life is behind this inexplicable behavior on the part of these people who are entrusted with sacred obligations. I fear that there is some type of blackmail being employed. Such as: the release of secret information that would compromise our national security or worse yet; have suitcase nukes or biological weapons been smuggled into the country and being used as a threat? Consider how friendly Chairman Soetoro is with the Muslim Brotherhood and how he is supporting their power grab in the Middle East. I do not know and certainly I hope that these suggestions that I have put forth are not the reality of the situation. However, it is obvious that there is some powerful force more significant than the threat of race riots keeping the issue of Soetoro’s eligibility from being properly investigated and dealt with.
Hats off to Commander Kerchner, Lieutenant Colonel Lakin, and to all of those who have had the courage to stand up for the constitution, the laws of the land, and the American way of life.
"...worthless cowards in congress who are so afraid of being labeled racists that they are willing to commit treason."
Yep, a perfect exhibit of the insanity of White Guilt.
Middle class guy,
With Congress the reason they will not discuss the issue is because they have been told not to by Congressional leadership. Some office staffers have stated that when asked. Keeping Pelosi and others out of jail for their part in the biggest fraud/charade in history is being demanded by Congressional leadership, (both parties), and apparently members of Congress obey their leadership.
This refusal to discuss the issue IMO has nothing to do with fear of race riots, and if there were any they would be minor. Blacks are tired of the jerk just like the rest of us.
Congress has said fear of race riots is the reason because they are not going to say its "because we are protecting those members of Congress, especially Congressional leadership, who are involved in the biggest fraud in history and it's cover-up". The desire of wealthy and powerful people to stay out of prison is great, as are their means to insure that happens.
As for the media, there could be threats from the FCC or other sources...and, after all the media cheer leading for Obama their credibility would be totally destroyed if the truth about Obama became a subject of fair discussion in the media.
@Brett Tiernan
If that wasn't illegal, it should be. I'd like to know what Odumba said to those judges. Were they threatened, bribed???? I'm sure dykes Sotomayor and Kagan were probably promised SAME SEX MARRIAGE. That is probably all it took for them.
I would never threaten harm to the justices, but it'd still be best if they never cross my path lest they get an earful that they'd not soon forget ... if ever.
I'd like to know what Obama told those judges behind closed doors. Does anyone know??
@Anonymous
We don't have the time to vote them out. When a crime is committed, the suspect is immediately arrested. Then, they have an arraignment, a trial, and if the defendant can prove their innocence they're released. Whether or not they're guilty, if the evidence of a crime is enough for a grand jury indictment, they get arrested. This would be Eric Holders job, except he's part of the organized crime ring.
@MIDDLE CLASS GUY
You are correct that when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was on the bench, Justice Kennedy often voted as a moderate. But since she left the Court, Justice Kennedy has moved to the right.
For example, on the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008–2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five.
And even if Kennedy is not persuaded to accept an Obama eligiblity appeal, that still leaves Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas to implement "the rule of four" and grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari for an Obama-natural born citizen appeal to be heard by the full court.
In the 12 Obama eligiblity appeals that have reached the Supreme Court, not one of the nine Justices has asked for Obama or the Justice Department/Solicitor General to submit a brief in defense. Whenever any one of the Justices is seriously interested in an appeal, they always ask the opposing side to respond.
Obama and the Obama administration have not submitted a defense brief in any eligiblity appeals.
"@Anonymous
Anonymous at 5:28 says: "The "issue" of Obama's status as a natural born citizen or not has not been before the Supreme Court in any case to date."
That is incorrect.
Berg v Obama, Herbert v Obama, Craig v US, Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro directly challenged Barack Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen. Those appeals were all heard in Justices' Certiorari conferences at the Supreme Court and they were all denied cert by the Supreme Court for failure to get four Justices to agree to hear the appeal before the full court."
No, I am absolutely correct. All the cases you mention were dismissed in the lower courts on standing and justiciability. The appeals courts had upheld those decisions of the lower courts.
Even those case purported to challenge Obama's eligibility they never got past standing, therefore, the eligibility "issue" has never been before any court. There has been no issue properly presented to SCOTUS except those issues, not the "issue" of Obama's eligibility.
"We the People" haven't any standing when a kenyan lennist is thrust upon those whom the media saw a easy prey? The popular vote was torn away along with the electoral colleges lack of due diligence when it came to this con man's background. Lack of "standing" are the only words that are keeping this anti-American person in the White House.
@Anonymous
"No, I am absolutely correct. All the cases you mention were dismissed in the lower courts on standing and justiciability. The appeals courts had upheld those decisions of the lower courts.
Even those case purported to challenge Obama's eligibility they never got past standing, therefore, the eligibility "issue" has never been before any court. There has been no issue properly presented to SCOTUS except those issues, not the "issue" of Obama's eligibility."
---
Every appellant in an Obama eligiblity appeal has submitted legal briefs laying out their positions on eligibilty for the Justices to read. No Justice has been persuaded that lower courts ruled incorrectly on standing, justiciabilty, or failure to state a claim or any other grounds for dismissal.
The Supreme Court could have reversed lower court rulings on standing, justiciablity and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and overturned lower court dismissals for filing frivolous lawsuits and sent those appeals back to the lower courts for trials on the merits.
Craig v US was dismissed for being "incomprehensible" and "frivolous." It was not dismissed for standing or justiciablity.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17508692/Craig-v-US-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint-08-20090403
Hollister v Soetoro was also dismissed for being "frivolous."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48745245/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-Judge-Robertson-Dismissal-Opinion-Gov-uscourts-dcd-134576-21-0
It was not dismissed on standing or justiciability grounds.
It is likely that John McCain or the Republican National Committee on behalf of McCain-Palin would be the only person/entity who would be granted standing since McCain was the only other person in the US to receive Electoral College votes and therefore be able to show direct injury from Obama's election.
"Every appellant in an Obama eligiblity appeal has submitted legal briefs laying out their positions on eligibilty for the Justices to read."
--
You Obots LIE! Oh, and, learn how to spell eligibility!!
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 2 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2011)
May 25 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State to respond filed.
Jun 2 2011 Waiver of right of respondents President Barack Obama, and Vice-President Joseph Biden Jr. to respond filed.
Jun 2 2011 Waiver of right of respondents 55 California Presidential Electors of 2008, (Aleita Huguenin, et al.) to respond filed.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1351.htm
Funny how the "Justices" never provide a written comment on the cases as they do with other cases.
Funny how Justice Thomas admits they're evading the issue.
@ Anonymous 12:37
"May 2 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2011)
May 25 2011 Waiver of right of respondent Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State to respond filed.
Jun 2 2011 Waiver of right of respondents President Barack Obama, and Vice-President Joseph Biden Jr. to respond filed.
Jun 2 2011 Waiver of right of respondents 55 California Presidential Electors of 2008, (Aleita Huguenin, et al.) to respond filed.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1351.htm
"
Methinks you are confused as to which is the "Appellant."
@ Anonymous 12:21
Filing briefs on and issue that's not before the court will not get them heard. Eligibility has never been an issue before the court.
Yes, they could have taken up the issue of standing and remamded to the lower courts had they felt standing was in error in the rulings at the lower courts, but it is quite clear it was not.
Filing legally frivolous and incomprehensible suits won't get them addressed in courts either, and those suits were in fact as the courts stated.
I agree with you on McCain and standing. However he did not challenge Obama on eligibility nor did Congress raise any objections at the certification of the electoral votes.
Properly-filed objections to being on the ballot "may" get through the courts in 2012. I hope so. If one or more does, and it/they reach SCOTUS and the ruling is in Obama's favor, will it then be accepted?
Based on the ruling in Keyes v Bowen that will not take place in CA, however. The law is very similar in other states, as many court challenges have similarly shown.
None of the so-called "birther bills" passed any legislatures in 2011, with the exception of AZ and it was vetoed by the governor.
didnt obAMa have his secret meeting with the SCOTUS WHILE he had an eligibility case pending ? if so .isnt that a bit irregular at best ?
arent the members of the SCOTUS required to take some oath requiring them to honour ,protect and obey the US constitution and the rule of law ?
Just STOP with the pissing contest guys! It's silly because we all know that they are "avoiding the issue"! After 3 effing years of this communist plant destroying our great country, he's STILL there in our White House spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor! I'm so pissed and disgusted by it ALL!
"he's STILL there in our White House"
Its not YOUR whitehouse any more. You lost it when us communists took over the country and will NEVER have it again.
@Anonymous
Challenges to Obama's eligibility that have been before the Supreme Court seeking Writs of Certiorari or applications for stays/injunctions:
Berg v Obama
Beverly v FEC
Craig v US
Donofrio v Wells
Herbert v Obama
Hollister v Soetoro
Kerchner v Obama
Keyes v Bowen
Lightfoot v Bowen
Rhodes V MacDonald
Scnneller v Cortes
Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz
Post a Comment
“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)
Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.